Existential Deism?

[The Silence]

I've been thinking carefully about...well, pretty much everything in recent years. I came to the conclusion that religiously, I'm best described as a deist, while I cannot help but accept much of what existentialism has to say. I keep reading of an existential deism (or thomism?) but know nothing about it. Can anyone fill me in?

[Only_Humean]

I've been thinking carefully about...well, pretty much everything in recent years. I came to the conclusion that religiously, I'm best described as a deist, while I cannot help but accept much of what existentialism has to say. I keep reading of an existential deism (or thomism?) but know nothing about it. Can anyone fill me in?

Moved to HoQ.

How do you reconcile the existentialist fundamental absurdity/irrationality of existence with a deist willed universe?

[Trevor]

How do you reconcile the existentialist fundamental absurdity/irrationality of existence with a deist willed universe?

A deity with a sense of humour?

[The Silence]

Moved to HoQ.

How do you reconcile the existentialist fundamental absurdity/irrationality of existence with a deist willed universe?

From what I know of deism, it assumes that the universe is a machine that pretty much runs such a tight mechanism that everything is predetermined. Existentialism assumes the universe has no meaning or order, but here's where I come in. If you take Deism and Existentialism as hard, rigid doctrines of belief then no, they aren't compatible. So, we ignore the rigidity.

Science does not describe such a necessitarian universe, it describes a random universe, but one governed by rigid laws which are indiscriminate to subjective events (which includes our lives and all the trappings therein). If we accept we cannot answer the "existence of God" question one way or another, but err on the side of caution (by assuming there is a God of some sort, but not one bound in definition by any particular religious belief system), then we can begin to see a way through this mess.

If there is a God, he's got a whole universe to run. And the problem of evil says something about that - even if God can intervene, he tends not to in most things. So what if God never intended for earth to be his priority? And what if God always knew a self-regulating world, atheistic and rational, would emerge? Stories of the world being made in 7 days worked 2000 years ago, sure - but here in 2011 we know the truth. Fact is, I think God knew this would happen all along, and his intervention in man should be seen as that of a father raising a child to independence and freedom - now we're all grown up as a civilization we do indeed have free will. This means that God is still unknowable, and we have free will, and that our place in the universe is essentially the same as an existential freedom - we must define it.

That was a bit stream-of-consciousness, I apologise - propounding a new integrated theory of deist existentialism isn't easy for someone who's philosophical ability is comparable to a fish's ability to knit!

[without-music]

How do you reconcile the existentialist fundamental absurdity/irrationality of existence with a deist willed universe?

Perhaps it wasn't willed so much as it was just accidentally created and subsequently abandoned. Then again, I'm no deist.

[Only_Humean]

How do you reconcile the existentialist fundamental absurdity/irrationality of existence with a deist willed universe?

Perhaps it wasn't willed so much as it was just accidentally created and subsequently abandoned. Then again, I'm no deist.

Sneezed into existence?

If we accept we cannot answer the "existence of God" question one way or another, but err on the side of caution (by assuming there is a God of some sort, but not one bound in definition by any particular religious belief system), then we can begin to see a way through this mess.

I'm apparently still lost... What caution are we erring on the side of? Can't I err on the side of caution and assume there isn't?

[without-music]

Sneezed into existence?

It's possible, if a little humiliating. Such an interpretation would be nothing if not original, at the very least. But again: I'm no Deist.

[The Silence]

If we accept we cannot answer the "existence of God" question one way or another, but err on the side of caution (by assuming there is a God of some sort, but not one bound in definition by any particular religious belief system), then we can begin to see a way through this mess.

I'm apparently still lost... What caution are we erring on the side of? Can't I err on the side of caution and assume there isn't?

Because if we cannot prove either way that there is, or is not a God, what use is there to assume there isn't one and live a life in absolute atheistic apathy? There's always the unanswered - and yes, unanswerable - question of whether or not you're being watched.

Now, I do not advocate following any religious doctrine or belief system - I'm not saying that by believing in God you have to "not sin" or uphold Christian beliefs, or heaven forbid believe in any of the creation myths or what-have-you - none of that. All I'm saying is maybe it's best to be an open-minded, optimistic agnostic, aware that, given the possibility of the existence of God, it's probably best to believe in him rather than take the opportunity to deny the possibility all together.

[without-music]

Because if we cannot prove either way that there is, or is not a God, what use is there to assume there isn't one and live a life in absolute atheistic apathy? There's always the unanswered - and yes, unanswerable - question of whether or not you're being watched.

Now, I do not advocate following any religious doctrine or belief system - I'm not saying that by believing in God you have to "not sin" or uphold Christian beliefs, or heaven forbid believe in any of the creation myths or what-have-you - none of that. All I'm saying is maybe it's best to be an open-minded, optimistic agnostic, aware that, given the possibility of the existence of God, it's probably best to believe in him rather than take the opportunity to deny the possibility all together.

This is called Pascal's Wager, and it is horribly unpersuasive. The first and most serious objection to the Wager should be immediately obvious: it argues for a belief in God, but doesn't prescribe which God to believe in -- there are hundreds of Gods, all of which require different faiths and different devotions. How do we pick the right God out of this multiplicity of deities? How can we find the right Heaven and avoid the right Hell when there are countless different ones to choose from? The Wager offers no help in making this choice; by its logic we should believe in any supernatural being claimed to have the power to reward or punish us. Do the theists who use Pascal's Wager believe in Santa Claus? If not, they're being inconsistent. By their own logic they should believe in him, because if he exists they'll be rewarded with marvelous presents, and if he doesn't, what do they lose?

At first glance, belief in every god and every religion might seem the most obvious solution to this dilemma, but in reality this is impractical - the tithes would be staggering, the sheer number of devotions impossible to remember, and the amount of time each day that would have to be spent on ritual and prayer would total far more than 24 hours. And besides, most religions have already eliminated this option anyway by making claims to exclusivity, each one claiming that people who believe in any other are damned.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is a single, unified position, but theism is not. There is no such thing as "generic theism"; one cannot choose to "just believe something". And the choice is not, as some evangelical Christians seem to think it is, between evangelical Christianity and nothing. There are hundreds of religions, and no a priori reason to choose one of them over any of the others. And the theist who chooses the wrong religion is in just as much trouble as the atheist who chooses none of them. Therefore, the Wager falls: one cannot assume that a person who believes in God and is wrong stands to lose nothing.

[The Silence]

Because if we cannot prove either way that there is, or is not a God, what use is there to assume there isn't one and live a life in absolute atheistic apathy? There's always the unanswered - and yes, unanswerable - question of whether or not you're being watched.

Now, I do not advocate following any religious doctrine or belief system - I'm not saying that by believing in God you have to "not sin" or uphold Christian beliefs, or heaven forbid believe in any of the creation myths or what-have-you - none of that. All I'm saying is maybe it's best to be an open-minded, optimistic agnostic, aware that, given the possibility of the existence of God, it's probably best to believe in him rather than take the opportunity to deny the possibility all together.

This is called Pascal's Wager, and it is horribly unpersuasive. The first and most serious objection to the Wager should be immediately obvious: it argues for a belief in God, but doesn't prescribe which God to believe in -- there are hundreds of Gods, all of which require different faiths and different devotions. How do we pick the right God out of this multiplicity of deities? How can we find the right Heaven and avoid the right Hell when there are countless different ones to choose from? The Wager offers no help in making this choice; by its logic we should believe in any supernatural being claimed to have the power to reward or punish us. Do the theists who use Pascal's Wager believe in Santa Claus? If not, they're being inconsistent. By their own logic they should believe in him, because if he exists they'll be rewarded with marvelous presents, and if he doesn't, what do they lose?

At first glance, belief in every god and every religion might seem the most obvious solution to this dilemma, but in reality this is impractical - the tithes would be staggering, the sheer number of devotions impossible to remember, and the amount of time each day that would have to be spent on ritual and prayer would total far more than 24 hours. And besides, most religions have already eliminated this option anyway by making claims to exclusivity, each one claiming that people who believe in any other are damned.

The fact of the matter is that atheism is a single, unified position, but theism is not. There is no such thing as "generic theism"; one cannot choose to "just believe something". And the choice is not, as some evangelical Christians seem to think it is, between evangelical Christianity and nothing. There are hundreds of religions, and no a priori reason to choose one of them over any of the others. And the theist who chooses the wrong religion is in just as much trouble as the atheist who chooses none of them. Therefore, the Wager falls: one cannot assume that a person who believes in God and is wrong stands to lose nothing.

That whole argument falls on because you've started out on a totally false premise - that given the choice of deities between religions and belief systems, people must "choose" one. If anything, the diversity shows that there could be some truth behind all of them in that some force exists but sticking to one or another is just blind unthinking conformity.

Imagine your favourite TV show ends on a cliffhanger and you're in a discussion where people take sides as to particular ideas about how the cliffhanger will be resolved. Now, you could simply side with one of the pre-existing ideas, with it's assumptions and beliefs about the show as a whole, or you could say, "it will be resolved, and there is a resolution sitting on someone's desk right now, but we can't actually expect to know the real resolution so sticking to one guess or another is pointless." However, you do know there will be an answer.

The point is that life is not about choosing one religion (or it's ideas at least) to stick to, or choosing one philosophical school or another, or choosing a dogmatic political direction over another - it's about living life on the most agreeable terms. I believe, personally, that no religion is right but that there is a supreme being or force out there.

[Only_Humean]

That whole argument falls on because you've started out on a totally false premise - that given the choice of deities between religions and belief systems, people must "choose" one. If anything, the diversity shows that there could be some truth behind all of them in that some force exists but sticking to one or another is just blind unthinking conformity.

Imagine your favourite TV show ends on a cliffhanger and you're in a discussion where people take sides as to particular ideas about how the cliffhanger will be resolved. Now, you could simply side with one of the pre-existing ideas, with it's assumptions and beliefs about the show as a whole, or you could say, "it will be resolved, and there is a resolution sitting on someone's desk right now, but we can't actually expect to know the real resolution so sticking to one guess or another is pointless." However, you do know there will be an answer.

The point is that life is not about choosing one religion (or it's ideas at least) to stick to, or choosing one philosophical school or another, or choosing a dogmatic political direction over another - it's about living life on the most agreeable terms. I believe, personally, that no religion is right but that there is a supreme being or force out there.

So you believe in a God that demands nothing, makes no claims, and doesn't affect your actions in any way? Surely "a nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing can be said"?

[The Silence]

So you believe in a God that demands nothing, makes no claims, and doesn't affect your actions in any way? Surely "a nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing can be said"?

The point is that we cannot know anything about God, or even if there is one - choosing from the range of man-made ideas of God is useless but so is assuming that something unprovable, or un-falsifiable, is fictional.

[septimus]

there is a resolution sitting on someone's desk right now

But it isn't. There is only one way to know if there is God. To die. And at this point all debates fall flat. If there is God and Heaven, the souls cannot just text you and say there is, and if we die and our consciousness dies with us, well that's pretty explanatory. The point is, this question is absolutely and totally UN-answerable, any future technology or science absolute cannot provide the answer. Only you as an individual will know/or not the answer.